![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Cornes v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 2 (TC) (03 January 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2012/TC01701.html Cite as: [2012] UKFTT 2 (TC) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
[2012] UKFTT 2 (TC)
TC01701
Appeal number: TC/2011/05656
Appeal against surcharge for late payment of tax – reasonable excuse – appeal allowed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
SARAH
CORNES Appellant
- and -
TRIBUNAL: J. BLEWITT (TRIBUNAL JUDGE)
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 17 November 2011 without a hearing under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (default paper cases) having first read the Notice of Appeal dated 17 July 2011 and HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 14 September 2011.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2011
DECISION
Submissions of the parties
(a) The Appellant is a salaried partner in a small solicitors firm who has taken a 50% pay cut for the last 2 years as a result of the recession;
(b) The Appellant’s husband lost his livelihood 3 times in the past 3 years with a near nervous breakdown many times throughout that period;
(c) The couple have debts of approximately £85,000 which are being repaid under a Debt Management Plan;
(d) Due to the Appellant’s husband being an alcoholic, combined with the financial pressures suffered, the couple separated on 20 April 2011. Throughout this period, the Appellant made all efforts possible to manage the separation, her 2 children, working full time and controlling the debt. There was only so much she could cope with and was unable to manage the amount of paperwork coming in.
Decision